Abstract
Background While debates on drug policy express a range of ethical viewpoints, many are underpinned by core ideas drawn from liberal philosophy. Much recent analysis on the moral principles underpinning drug policy debates focuses on differences between reformers and supporters of the status quo. Less attention has been given to divergences among advocates for drug policy reform, which often hinge on the interpretation and application of liberal principles. Methods This paper examines three concepts from liberal philosophy in relation to drug policy debates: ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ freedom, rational autonomy, and social contract. The articulation of these ideas, and the extent to which they underpin different positions on policy reform, is explored with reference to three areas of advocacy: legal regulation; decriminalization; and harm reduction. Results Agreement on drug policy reforms does not necessarily imply shared views regarding concepts of freedom, rational autonomy, or social contract. Specific policy solutions may be supported by a range of ethical and political positions and can serve as points where divergent, and sometimes conflicting, philosophical perspectives converge. Conclusion Drug policy advocacy expresses a range of underpinning moral, political, and philosophical perspectives. Recognizing commonalities and differences among these perspectives is important for coalition-building and strategic planning.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call